Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 18:31 PM
I wouldnt say the war was lost in 1941... after stalingrad it was, thats why Hitler refused to pull out even if it meant possibly losing the entire 6th army, He knew there was noway for a German victory with a retreat from Stalingrad. The US was about to enter the war on a big scale and germany atleast needed a huge advantage on the eastern front to be able to face a new enemy.
Dude , Stalingrad was not even the strategic objective when case blue started let alone vital for victory. |
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 18:22 PM
Except that in 1944, german production of everything was higher than ever before, and the soviets certainly knew how to win in 1941. Do you know operation typhoon which ended in a german failure? Or maybe operation uranus?
The war was allready lost after 1941, Moscow. Stalingrad was the final nail to the coffin.
And another superpower on the western side of the their border so their resources where further split. But your indeed correct the germans did produce more tanks and material but this was but a fraction of what would be produced if the ami's didnt bomb the shit out of the german industry. multiply the amount produced by 5 for 1944 and you would be closer if germnay's industry remained intact. You ask why the germans didn't build so many tanks before? because hitler was idiot that didn't put the entire german economy to the war effort and germany remained with a peace time economy all the way up to 1943.
Operation typhoon is not a good example. the soviets hwre in the defensive still they lost in 1:3 in man. Operation Uranus only succeeded thx to hitlers egomania. Soviets screwed that operation up as well . Soviet intelligence believed that their where only 85 k German soldiers in Stalingrad. if the paulus was allowed to retreat 80 k soviets would faced 360 k of germans all the while trapped on the banks of the volga river.
|
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 14:17 PM
Most Soviet tank losses in 1941-1942 were due to ABANDONMENT! not enemy action. The Soviet mechanized forces were overwhelmed in one- two months.
MOST soviet tanks were light tanks in 1941. BT-5, BT-7, T-26. There were few KV and T-34 tanks.
Many of these tanks were just lying there in storage, unused while the Germans advanced past them. This is how they lost 20,000 in a few months.
The Germans used a lot less light tanks than the Soviets. Vice versa, the Soviets used a lot less armored halftracks than the Germans.
Soviet offensive strategy was very effective in 1943-1945 but required a high expenditure of tanks.
Read 'Glantz, Stumbling Colossus'.
the soviets had about 2800 t-34's and 800 kv1 tanks. 2200 t-34's where lost with 1600 because of enemy actions. half of the 1600 kills are credited to the p3 with a long barrel 50 mm cannon. but such tanks could only penetrate from point blank range or the sides. it says something about soviet tank design if the p3 crews managed to flank the t-34 repeatedly and destroy it. |
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 14:06 PM
This post is completely wrong. You should have said: 'If the Soviets were always the same as they were in 1941, they would have lost the war'
The Soviets were 'incompetent' in 1941 and up to the fall of 1942. The Germans and their allies attacked while the Soviets were reorganizing their entire armed force- they were 20 months into a 32 month program. The Soviet mechanized forces were destroyed in the first two months due mostly to the fact that they were only half formed. Afterward, the Soviets suffered from a cascade of misfortune and having to send hundreds of marginally trained reservist divisions to the front- outmatched by German formations due to lack of time.
They improved continuously though- something that the Germans did not achieve themselves. The German high point was 1941 (3 army group offensive) and they became weaker by (2 Army group offensive) Typhoon 1941 and (1 Army Group offensive) Blau 1942. Kursk was smaller than Blau 1942 and defeated by the Soviets in little over a week. The German twin pincers did not even get anywhere close to kursk.
Soviets were on par with the Germans during the winter of 1943. The Victory at Stalingrad destroyed all hopes of German strategic victory.
They surpassed the Germans and Axis allies in the summer of 1943. From the Summer of 1943 onward, Germans would no longer be capable of penetrating Soviet defenses at the operational level/operational rear. Soviet defense strategy had improved dramatically.
Lend Lease only started appearing in significant numbers AFTER they won Stalingrad.
By 1944 and 1945, Soviet operational art had matured and surpassed that of the German although they were still let down at the tactical level.
The Soviet's greatest operation would probably be Operation August Storm in Manchuria in 1945. The Soviets peaked in 1945 and the Germans peaked in 1941!
I didn't say they didn't improve . But friend of my that is in the military once said this: do not fight like the soviets do. You never going to have the same amount of advantages they had. Land lease gave the soviets another 10 k vehicles in 1941 alone. |
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 11:12 AM
Wow, German tanks fired 3x faster, the Russians couldn't spot the enemy, had trouble aiming, couldn't engage at long distances, achieved a 1:9 KDR on a regular basis? I can't possibly imagine how the Germans managed to lose the war 
They nearly did remember despite the soviets having rather massive advantages . If the Americans didn't help the soviets out with land lease, a western front and the complete destruction of germany's industrial capabilities i dont see how the soviets would have won if the soviets kept fighting that incompetently. |
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 09:33 AM
Correction: the German crews that survived...
Anyway, the Americans were under controlled Scientific conditions... the Germans weren't. I'd trust Americans assessments more than German anecdotal accounts which are coloured by fear, exhaustion and paying attention to their own things as well.
The statistics back the germans up. excessive kill ratio of 1:9 where not uncommon. Controlled scientific conditions dont appear on the battlefield and is very likely the soviets send their best build t-34 to the states for testing. The real problem for the ami's back then was they where a bunch of newbies when it came to tank warfare.
The problems of svoet tank designed where became apparent during the Korean war as well where the sherman and pershing proved to be superior fighting vehicles then the t-34/85 |
Thread: ISU-1523 May 2014, 08:13 AM
Quality varied somewhat throughout the war but at worst was "ok" and at best was "fantastic". In 1943 the Americans and British were evaluating soviet tanks in the UK and gave us this quote regarding the T-34 and KV1:
"Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America".
What the Americans are saying is not relevant. what the Germans are saying is relevant. According to German tankers and AT crews: t-34 crews fired 3 times slower, had extreme difficulty finding and engaging targets and where inaccurate beyond the 500 meters. considering that in some years the soviets lost 10 k t-34's i find their assessment more accurate.
As for the isu-152. its simply to cost effective for what it is doing. either reduce the AT power of this unit or bump the price up to 300 fuel. |
My issues with the p2w commander which is heavily used by top 10 ladder players. So you know it's the most broken and abused piece of horse tripe in the game.
1. You don't earn your experience. You didn't risk your unit to get vet. You didn't give the enemy vet by fighting them. Most of the time the resources to buy the vet were a result of pio or gren spam early map pushes.
2. The biggest douche bags vet the mortar. Why because the only risk with using troop training is a squad wipe. If you train up support units or armor you can escape .
3. Vet units kill better and get more vet easily.
4. Vet units evade shots, harder to squad wipe
5. Vet units get special abilities way before they should.
6. Vet units give you an edge that allows you to take or hold resource you normally would not get.
Like I said watch high level players almost all of them have the doctorine and abuse the shit out of it. So you know it is p2w.
Not only are you wrong about what vet does for most of the time currently the entire elite doctrine is far from meta as most abilities have rather dubious value. The mechanised doctrine is now meta and is often seen in the top matches as it is well balanced versatile and can handle anything the soviets throw at it while having very few weaknesses. |
Quoted from official community balance forums:
Grenadiers get spammed under by cons (if pio spam isn't allowed, then conscript spamming shouldn't be allowed to work either they're both built without tech)
And they can because after a while the lmg come out making a conscript spam a waste
pgrens can only take on 1 con squad, from cover at a time (despite being worth 1.5 of a cons squad, and having twice the reinforce
I have to agree that pg's currently are really limited to shreck support squads
Hmg 42 is still close to a waste of time compared to the maxim that still outperforms it in every way.
I have to agree that the suppresion is not strong enough and conscripts can easily walk over the mg42 from the front.
german mortars get 1 shotted after a soviet mortar gets vet 1
very rarely however especially with the incoming damage reduction from aoe effects
russians snipers are even more bs now the g43 nerf has come in.
Doesnt matter as stock kar98 does it better
the russian at gun seems to be firing with perfect accuracy with its barrage ability
nope. that said gtfo of the area when it does fire
german t2 vehicles are a waste of time
nope. SC can easily wreck any infantry except guards. and the ht is a very useful tool
german t3 are a waste of time
Nope. i know you hate the stug but its an awesome unit now . and both the ostwind and p4's got some minor buffs. its true that soviet armor got an At increase but ram was nerfed into the ground and the ai has been greatly reduced.
and t4 is too expensive for its combat power...
I have to agree on that
|
Ohh thats quite easy to answer:
Because germans are not supposed to have any advantage over soviets late game and panther had ALL the advantages, speed, cost, AT, armor, health of heavy tank for only slightly more then KV-1 price.
The thing about the kv1 is that its very good against infantry while the panther is only useful against tanks. dedicated unit must always be more efficient then the generalist ones otherwise their is simply no reason to buy one. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
